In an effort to solicit public input about the future of village centers, the Planning Department has been reaching out to groups that aren’t typically asked their opinions on municipal matters. Groups include high school students, people with disabilities, the BIPOC and LBGTQ communities, older adults, creative communities, renters and others.
Following a presentation from the department about its efforts, Councilor Julia Malakie asked (through Councilor Pam Wright because Malakie was at a separate meeting), “What makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?”
WTF???
This is a very disappointing question to hear from a Newton city councilor in 2021. Perhaps Councilor Malakie doesn’t understand what it means to be marginalized or how LGBTQ rights are being trampled, I suggest she take a look at recent laws states across this country have passed or are trying to pass.
My question to Councilor Malakie: What makes you think that we shouldn’t ask the LGBTQ community what it wants?
Planning’s “Vision Kit” activity is a really great idea to try to record how we see our city. I invite everyone to check it out and contribute your own unique viewpoint:
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/village-centers
The best way to find out if people have distinct opinions is to ask them. Finding commonalities is just as important as finding distinctions. In either case there may be interesting, useful, or empowering surprises.
Public outreach is essential for good public policymaking. It is challenging and time consuming to do great public outreach that includes all voices. On top of that, Newton (and many other cities) doesn’t have a long or successful track record with highly inclusive public process. If you don’t ask, you don’t know. If you don’t know, you miss things.
I’ve been involved in a lot of public projects in Newton and other location communities. I have many times heard “Why weren’t we asked?” , even in cases of concerted public process. I can’t ever remember a time when someone said the city had asked them too much.
I think the City and the Planning Department are on the right track by being as inclusive as they can possibly be in planning their outreach activities for zoning and beyond. How that information gets amalgamated into actionable observations and great public policy is its own challenge, but I hope we can solve it as well.
I was originally confused by the proposed focus groups but after reaching out to Susan Albright I got the rationale. That said, this post seems unnecessarily divisive at at time when there is too much acrimony and division in Newton
@MaryLee this is a big deal. It’s a big deal not because Gail wrote about it, but because it happened. Councilor Ryan immediately spoke out about it, followed quickly by Councilor Bowman.
You are correct in that it’s unnecessarily divisive, but the person who you should be targeting is Malakie.
Perhaps Ms. Malakie should stick to trees.
If we are talking about height restrictions, setbacks, business zones, garage ratios… can someone provide concrete examples were LGBTQ perspective would differ from non LGBTQ view point.
Examples would help decide how wrong Councilor Malakie is on her stance.
Frankly, this is ridiculous from Councilor Malakie (and I know it’s not from her, but Councilor Wright should face criticism here as well for even willing to proxy in this instance). The two of them should be voted out come November because of this.
This is a situation where context matters. The inference to this post is that the Councilor is not sensitive to the needs of the LQBTQ community or is some how anti-LGBTQ. If the question was asked because she does not see the distinction between how LGBTQ or heterosexuals would respond to questions of FAR, setbacks, conforming vs. non-conforming, etc., I don’t think it is an unreasonable question.
If the city is asking as many communities and groups as possible to give feedback, and she was unclear about that, then I don’t see anything wrong with the question and she now has the answer. If she was asking it out of malice, it’s a different story. The point is this post is leading and without context one cannot know her true intent.
i wasn’t merely inferring that Councilor Malakie’s question was not sensitive to the needs of the community, I was stating it outright. The presentation was about soliciting public opinion on village centers. Not understanding that we need to reach out to groups that are being discriminated against shows a lack of empathy. I expect more from our elected officials.
The focus groups discussions the city is conducting are not about FAR, setbacks, etc. They’re broader vision questions along the lines of what you’d like to see in our villages?
I can’t think of any better way to find out if any specific demographic has unique feelings about any topic than by asking.
In that spirit, rather than try to guess what Councilor Malakie meant, let’s ask her to explain it here.
I’d also like to hear Councilor Wright explain why she didn’t say to Councilor Malakie “No I won’t ask that question and you should thank me for not being willing to do so.”
I stand corrected then. I agree it would be good to hear the Councilor Malakie’s thinking.
BTW, here’s the video. The segment starts with Councilor Wright and ends with Councilor Bowman…its about 10 minutes in total.
Since there were some sincere questions in the comments above about how zoning code brass tacks might affect certain communities differently, I thought I would include some notes from one of my recent newsletters, without getting into what happened at the meeting since I was in a different committee meeting at the time.
There are two basic reasons for conducting these narrower focus group sessions. First, they are intended to round out the demographics of those attending the general meetings to ensure that we have something closer to a representative sampling of Newtonians. Some homeowners of certain demographics are well-represented in general community meetings already, but some other categories of residents are not as well-represented compared to the real demographics of the city.
Second, some of these constituencies do actually have distinctive interests in the zoning of village centers. One obvious example would be how the built environment affects people with varying types or categories of disabilities.
One example you might not be aware of – depending on your own background or where else you have lived – would be how commercial zoning and land use policy has affected the LGBTQ community in recent years in the Boston area. Many gay bars in previously lower-rent commercial districts have been closed over the past decade due to unsustainable market pressures and lack of programs to help protect them, even after decades of operation. Many predominantly gay residential neighborhoods in numerous American cities have also disappeared over recent decades, due to market pressures and lack of protections.
(These are just some specific examples of how zoning and land use policy in our region might affect a particular demographic group or constituency differently that some people might not have been considering.)
Another similar example would be the huge pressure in rent costs on artistic districts, places that had art studios for many years in large concentrations. You’ll notice “members of the creative community” was a focus group category, too.
So, it’s important to understand that the Planning Department is organizing these specialized focus groups because there are some aspects of our community zoning and land use policies that affect certain sub-communities within our community differently from how they affect everyone else, and we want to hear from them on those specific points, which might be outside the time constraints of a general meeting.
I hope that is helpful information to people reading or posting in the comments section on this thread. Again, I’m not going to get into anything else people are debating in this venue, but I saw an opportunity to give some answers to broader questions people had.
Bill Humphrey: +1. Attah go
I credit the planning dept for reaching out to disadvantaged communities for input on our village centers. I also credit Councilor Malakie for asking what seems like an honest question, and Councilor Humphrey (and others) for respectfully answering that question, and for pointing out things that were not obvious to everyone.
Without the question, we would not have the answer. We’re better informed now. Can everyone please stop the bickering and start discussing things like adults?
@LDS: I totally agree. I was unpleasantly surprised by the tone of this post, which is uncharacteristic of its author.
@Newtoner: I’m sorry you were surprised by the tone of this post but as the proud mother of a daughter who is part of the LGBTQ community, I’m not inclined to go out of my way to be nice to people who should understand how hurtful their words can be. Councilor Malakie did not ask an innocent question; she singled out a community that is being attacked all over the country and asked why their experiences matter.
I’m going to second what Bill said. There are many good reasons for soliciting feedback from marginalized communities.
Here’s a few facts for those who don’t understand how wide the gap is between LGBTQ+ people and their cis-gender counterparts:
– 15% higher chance of being poor
– Nearly 50% less likely to be homeowners
– Studies show that as many as 50% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+, driven in part by the number of young people who are shunned by their families after coming out
Here’s my question for Councilors Malaki and Wright: Why would you single out the LGBTQ+ community for scrutiny here? What is so offensive about soliciting our input that wasn’t so about the creative community, older adults, etc?
I think we deserve an apology.
PS – I am very thankful for our LGBTQ+ leaders like Holly Ryan and Matthew Miller, who ensure that our community isn’t left out of the conversation when this type of ignorance comes up in our public discourse.
Bryan P Barash: It is a long way from “soliciting input from the variety of constituencies potentially effected” to either identity politics or multi-culturalism.
I, for one, am confident in Newtonians’ interest in and consensus on the former. The latter has not (“yet” perhaps?) been established through the ballot box as being a “Newton value”.
@Presumptuous: Can you clarify what you mean when you say you’re not sure if “identity politics” or “multi-culturalism” are Newton values? It sounds like you’re saying LGBTQ+ or racial equality aren’t supported by voters, but I can’t imagine that’s what you meant.
Bryan
Prrhaps @Presumptuous is suggesting that some people in Newton prefer to treat people an individuals rather than their identity.
Perhaps one day we can treat everyone as a person rather than “insert indentity here”
@Bugek, our identities are pretty fundamental to who we are as individuals.
Another example of how LGBTQ people may have different priorities when it comes to zoning-related matters is that, for obvious historical reasons, seniors who identify as LGBTQ are less likely than straight/cis-identifying people to have children or spouses. This means not only (well documented) greater social isolation in old age, but also practical challenges arising from having no one to assist with errands, give rides to medical appointments, etc. in the event of aging-related disability. As someone actively caring for parent with such disabilities, I’m acutely aware of how limited her living options in Newton would be if she were childless.
@Marya – Good point! Older LGBTQ+ people are also more likely to be discriminated against in congregate care settings, and as a result may be more interested in remaining in their home for longer.
To those of you who are oh-so-woke and pious, you are actually arrogant and condescending.
LGBTQ people don’t need your patronizing “outreach”.
They aren’t powerless pawns, as you seem to insinuate. Did you know they actually vote? They even come to public meetings! They write letters and make phone calls to elected officials! Sometimes they file some very good lawsuits! They have demonstrations, and excellent parades.
They do these things better than you. Unless you too are LGBTQ, in which case, kudos.
How ridiculous is this post: “reaching out to groups that aren’t typically asked their opinions on municipal matters”. WHAAAAAAT? Whatever you are, when is the last time the city called YOU and asked your opinion about ANYTHING?
@Gail — I can understand how you can be outraged by this, but take a step back and try for a moment not to ascribe an agenda or bias to the question.
Bill Humphrey above gave a very thoughtful and specific answer, which, if I had asked it, would lead me to say, “that’s an excellent point I hadn’t thought of.”
Groups have a spectrum of views on any topic. No one member of a minority group speaks for that group as a whole. Even a focus group of the self-selected subset of a minority group that would turn out for one likely wouldn’t represent that group’s view.
It’s anti-discrimination 101 to know that you don’t turn to [insert member of minority group here] to ask them how [insert minority group here] feels about an issue if you are in a business meeting. Asserting to a minority group member in that context that their views are necessarily different can be an example of a micro-aggression.
@Jack: I’m not outraged, I’m disappointed. I don’t think I would have reacted publicly to the comment if it hadn’t come from an elected official.
@Boatie McBoatface – To answer your question – right now.
The planning department is undertaking a very extensive outreach program to talk to people, all people, across the city about what they like, don’t like and would like to see in our village centers. To that end they’re organizing community walks in all the villages to solicit ideas from the public, they’ve been contacting many different community organizations of all sorts, and they’re trying to cast a wide net to get as much community input as they can. That seems like a good approach to me.
Nobody seems to have any concerns that they are asking neighborhood groups to participate, or old folks, or high school kids, or arts groups, or any of the other many community groups that may/may not have their own specific ideas.
Will high schools kids, or arts groups, or any other specific groups of citizens have ideas or suggestions that are distinct from the larger population? The answer certainly may be “no” but you won’t know until you ask.
Reaching out to any of those parts of our community, taking to any of those “identity” groups, seems to be just fine and doesn’t seem to raise any concerns. Why the alarm bells about asking this specific group, the LGBTQ community, what their thoughts are.
Nobody has said that LGBTQ folks are “powerless pawns” any more than all the other groups that the planning department has reached out to are ‘powerless pawns’.
@Bill Humphrey, thank you for this explanation. It definitely helped me better understand the issues involved with planning. I wish more posts on this blog were as informative and non-judgemental.
@Jerry, I like you but I’m calling bull*** on your last comment. If, as you say, the planning department has a “very extensive outreach program to talk to people, ALL PEOPLE” why would they need to cherry-pick LGBTQ people?
“ALL PEOPLE” would mean you don’t need to ask who is having sex with whom.
@boatie wow, you have twisted into a pretzel trying to make that argument.
The planning department is collecting voices. Councilor Malakie called out this specific group and this is about reacting to THAT. Turning that around to criticize the program shows you to be an impressive contortionist.
@Bryan P Barash:: A distinguishing feature of (Oxford definitions):
i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics — (noun) a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism [/ˈˌməltēˈkəlCH(ə)rəˌlizəm,ˈˌməltəˈkəlCH(ə)rəˌlizəm,ˈˌməlˌtīˈkəlCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/] — (noun) the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.
is the dividing of a single body politic into isolated sub-groups that tend to place sub-group priorities over group priorities.
The observation was that today’s citizens are members of the community called Newton which is a singular thing governed as such. If there are to be multiple Newtons to be governed as sub-communities, that, as the assertion goes, is not a current Newton value and so would remain something that would need to be established by the democratic will of all people of Newton.
Bill Humphrey admirably wrote from a perspective of that single Newton.
@Chuck: You don’t make your point any more eloquently by calling me names.
It is ironic that you claim to be including everyone’s voice while you resort to name-calling.
Thank you @CouncilorHumphrey.
My read on Councilor Malakie’s question was that it reflected a desire to understand the data you mention. Specifically,
1) The data being used to determine that LGBTQ people have been disproportionately underrepresented in Newton Community meetings relative to a representative sampling.
2) The data the City will use to understand if we are actually making progress in our efforts to better understand the needs of LBTQ residents.
This post has me wondering what data was used to determine the Age 65+ group @Bryan mentions is underrepresented. By outward appearance that subgroup seems well represented at live and virtual community & civic meetings. This commitment to civic engagement is further reflected in high voter turnout rates for Newton elections and a willingness to volunteer to run our polling stations.
I’m assuming @Gail did not reach out to Julia to ask if her interpretation of the question was accurate before issuing this V14 post. Full disclosure, I didn’t ask either. My read is base on observing the fact-based approach she takes to solving problems, assessing recommendations and serving constituent requests.
There is another possible reason for the question that hasn’t been discussed. Councilor Malakie could have wanted to ensure LGBTQ residents were not being singled out in ways that could inadvertently lead to unfair targeting or treatment. Rather than making unfounded accusations or immediately assuming the worst, she asked a colleague attending a meeting that she couldn’t join to secure additional information to confirm that wasn’t the case.
Uh oh. I just got whacked with a “bull**** McBoatface”.
No I don’t think the planning department has been asking anyone who they’ve had sex with, nor have they been asking the elderly their age. They’ve just been asking about zoning issues in the villages.
Didn’t we just have a similar argument (from the opposite side) from some of the folks on this thread about the elimination of ward councilors, and how unfair that was because it didn’t provide for adequate representation as it increased the power of the majority? No posts about we are “one Newton” during that particular debate. Same with the Save Nonantum PAC. Some of the same folks here didn’t seem to mind the tone of that group. Funny that.
I make the point not to stir up trouble or past battles, but to show that fundamentally everyone likes to have their voice heard. Folks who supported ward councilors were afraid their voice wouldn’t be heard at the city councilor level. Folks supporting Save Nonantum were afraid that their traditions and village culture was being ignored. I don’t have to agree with either position to recognize that “being heard” and the corresponding “someone actively listening to me” are important for any community and subset therein. And that folks get heard in different ways.
We clearly aren’t a monolith in Newton. And while I recognize that lately Newton seems divided, it isn’t because of listening groups like this. It might seem strange to folks who aren’t in the focus groups (hey, why is MY voice not in those groups? Those folks are my neighbors and we share a lot of the same thoughts! And I’ve got my own things to discuss! Or in the words of a neighbor of mine, those focus group things made me feel “unspecial”.). The reality isn’t that you or I aren’t “unspecial”, but maybe sometimes our super loud voices can drown out folks who don’t speak up as much, don’t come to meetings as much, feel unwelcome at meetings, have family obligations that prevent meetings, have a speech impediment, etc. Asking for more perspectives isn’t drowning out the other voices as much as reflecting that there ARE other voices that get drowned out.
Now I have absolutely no idea if LGBTQ voices are being drowned out, or if they have a perspective different than my own. But how will I know if I don’t ask? And what the heck is the harm in asking?
I applaud this initiative. I would have added two other focus groups to the list however:
1) Parents with kids. Happy they are focusing on young people individually, but as someone with young kids below the age of 15, the city is missing this perspective in every village, and we are heavy users of the village centers! I’d put a pocket park each summer outside of every ice cream store in Newton to provide more seating (and maybe clean the garbage cans a bit more frequently too, ideally with a hose, near those special institutions.) I’d add little person seating in some of the parks, they make a low plastic picnic bench which is great for kids below the age of 8. I’d do my best to make sure that the Newtonville park along Bram way remains closed to vehicle traffic, because that has become THE hang-out spot for adults and adults with kids to drink coffee and meet up (and if the road is reopened, you basically eliminate me using it with my youngest, because cars used to fly down Bram way.
More seating is always welcome. One quick story. The Newtonville Area Council seems to hate the number of benches and the style of benches in the new Newtonville. But the parents I talk to and my kids love them. I go get a burrito with them and we can sit and eat outside. Same for coffee or ice cream. It has completely changed how often we stay and relax in the village. The NAC is mostly older adults. To them, the benches are uncomfortable and ugly. Hey, different perspectives, right? NAC is complaining loudly in multiple meetings. I’d say the city deserves to hear my voice and the voice of other parents with kids too, right? Especially those of us who can’t make the time with young kids to come to meetings at dinner and homework time.
2) and this one will amuse some folks, but they really should have had a focus group for immediate village neighbors. As folks at the Newtonville meetings kept telling me, I just couldn’t understand their perspective because I didn’t live close to Trio, or Austin Street, or Newtonville center (I do, but that’s a debate I guess). But folks who live right on top of village center have concerns about traffic, parking, garbage, noise, building height and other items that I clearly don’t have. Considering how often these same folks seem shocked that planning has gone on for certain projects, soliciting their voice upfront in a focus group is a good idea, even if their ideas might be just “leave us in peace and clean up your garbage”.
Cheers to all as someone who voice is heard via very long posts,
Figgy
Since we are concerned about getting everyone’s voice, here are missing categories
-working families who are only free on weekends
-Military personnel who may be on deployments
-devout religious folks who value walking to house of worships
-landlords who understand the rental market
-police officers who will patrol the area
It’s definitely worth listening to the video. I am impressed with Planner Nevena Pilipovic-Wegner’s response to this question. I think it’s spot on, didn’t miss a beat, very professional and informative. It’s right at the beginning of the video link Greg posted.
As for the main topic, I think word choice, tone, and a sensitive ear for both other discussants and the audience are all really critical in public discourse, or any discourse for that matter. Words are powerful. They matter.
We don’t always have the luxury of choosing our words perfectly. Nor are any of us infallible. But we can at least learn when other people react in ways we don’t expect. “What makes you think …?” is a blunt phrase that can put people on the spot. It can easily be construed as confrontational whether they are meant to be or not. The fact that the question involves members of a specific group that has historically been both singled out and marginalized just increases the likelihood of misinterpretation.
In any Council discussion, there’s also the question of goal or purpose. Why ask any particular question, using valuable discussion time? Is it to educate the public? Drive the discussion in a particular direction? Add pertinent information to the discussion itself? Or just personal curiosity? In this case, I don’t understand the Councilor’s goal here without more context. Since we live in an age of soundbites and limited attention spans, it’s better when our thoughts and intentions are clear, humble, and standalone, without the need of extra clarification.
With the benefit of hindsight and without an understanding of the exact intention here, clearer ways to ask this question might include:
“Could you elaborate on the kind of information you’re hoping to glean from your outreach to members of different groups such as LBGTQ+ people?”
“Could you describe the process for identifying voices that have been under-represented in previous civic outreach activities, and how you hope to be more successful?”
“Do you have some examples of how or why some of the groups you mentioned, such as LGBTQ+ people, might respond differently to this envisioning activity or to zoning in general?”
“How can we, as City Councilors, help identify important voices in the community that might not otherwise be part of the zoning redesign process, and get them involved?”
And to be clear, I struggle with how to avoid stereotypes, generalizations, and misleading aggregations when having these discussions. For instance, when I first wrote these examples, I used the phrase “members of the LBGTQ+ community”. I actually prefer Councilor Malakie’s “LBGTQ+ people” and so changed the examples accordingly. “Community” is a word that can imply voluntary familiarity and association. Our biggest challenge is reaching people who just “are the way they are” and don’t feel part of *any* community.
Mike proposes some better possible ways this question could have been asked.
But here’s what I’m wondering:
Why is it that Councilor Malakie felt this was a question that was so important she needed a colleague to ask it on her behalf that evening? Why did she feel this question needed to be asked at a public meeting?
This is a months’ long process. There was no vote that evening. No decisions hung in the balance. What was the urgency?
Why couldn’t she have called (or emailed) Nevena Pilipovic-Wengler in the Planning Department the next morning and said “Hi, I’m wondering, what makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?”
There is no public meeting or other rule that would prevent a single city councilor from approaching a city employee outside of the meeting with a question like that.
So why did she feel it needed to be asked then and there, especially since she couldn’t be there to ask it herself?
(Or for that matter, what if she were to have reached out later to her colleague, Councilor Ryan, who is a renowned subject matter expert on the issue and asked her?)
And I’d still like to know why Councilor Wright agreed to ask it on her behalf, but that’s a different story.
P.S. Once again here’s the link to the ten minute segment when this discussion came up. For context, please be sure and view Councilor Ryan’s and Coucilor Bowman’s (and Councilor Crossley, right after Councilor Bowman) comments. And, as Mike notes, if you watch the scroll back and watch the actual presentation.
V14 is better than this. It should be a place that promotes, not shuns, discourse.
Our community will function better if we give people the benefit of doubt and if we resist ascribing improper motives without evidence.
In that case, Jeffrey I suggest you ignore the comments that ascribe motives and do, as many have done here, and talk about this substantively because there are important substantive issues here.
Greg comment (basically, why ask this question in this particular meeting) echoes one of my points and gets to a larger question of how we make public meetings more efficient and effective.
Having remote attendance at meetings through video conferencing has meant that I’ve been able to see more committees in action this last year. I’ve found that a lot of time can end up being spent on background or somewhat peripheral questions from both Councilors and the public that could been much more effectively handled ahead of time or otherwise off-line. With such a large Council and an involved public, that background material can fill much of the meeting, or require staff to respond later. That then rushes the topic in question, which is often time-sensitive.
An example of this was the recent discussion in PS&T about possible traffic calming on Newtonville Ave. Two residents there have done a huge amount of constructive work rallying their neighbors and researching possible solutions. By the time all the background information and questions about traffic calming in Newton and in general was covered (which is only possible at a high level in such a forum), there was only 15-20 minutes to talk about Newtonville Ave. At the end of the meeting, these motivated residents were left with no clear next steps to address their concerns.
Seems like there’s got to be a better way. Unfortunately, more background reports or research puts more work on staff. I think we need to really consider how to make public meeting time more effective for everyone. As has come up in the past, that may include things like establishing more continuity of information from meeting to meeting. But staying on topic and being aware that non-critical questions can be addressed to the staff off-line is an easy place to start.
Jeffrey,
I certainly hope you begin to take your own advice in the future.
Newton: The Sycophant City … OBSESSED with skin color, gender, and sexual preference .. they virtue signal with yard signs, but whine about the hard working landscaper’s leaf blower, and restrict Firefighter memorial flags … a truly divisive community.
@Fignewtonville and Mike Halle – as always, I appreciate your perspectives.
Pretentious Newton,
You forgot one big one: The vast majority of the city council did not endorse a black candidate who wanted targeted affordable housing vs “developer led” construction.
“Developer profit matters more? ”
Thankfully Newton residents had more common sense…
I’m going to wade into treacherous waters on this, because, hey, that’s what I do.
The question posed by a City Councilor was: “What makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?” Ignoring which councilor asked the question, and which one posed it in the first place, there is a very different view one could reaonably take on the intent behind it.
During the campaign for “Equal Marriage,” I often heard from people complaining about the creation of “special rights” for gay people, like “gay marriage.” An LGBTQ+ friend of mine paraphrased what I think is the best possible response to such complaints, which was “It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.”
If that was Councilor Malakie’s motivation for asking the question, and Councilor Wright’s reason for repeating it, I can stand behind that rationale. Assuming that a particular group of people who share a certain identity are monolithic in their views, or that any single person represents the views of everyone in that group, is demeaning to say the least. That is not to say that the Planning Department’s question was demeaning, only that a reasonable person might interpret it that way.
Now, I could be totally wrong about this, and the rest of “woke” Newton may be totally right. But I do wish that some of the comments on Village 14 on this topic were more thoughtful and deliberative and less reactive, on both sides of the great divide over zoning policy.
1. Went to Chipotle last night. Probably not the best idea on a Saturday night, but the kid’s gotta eat. As you can imagine, the parking lot was quite busy… not just because of Chipotle but also it was a nice evening and Pressed was having a good night as well. Amid all this chaos, and as I was trying to leave, an SUV sat in my path…adorned with all the social warrior stickers of the day…mom casually chatting with her teen (probably about what he’s going order) and holding up the entire parking lot. There was no consideration, zero sense of urgency, just oozing entitlement. Eventually, her teen casually exits the vehicle (with a smug look on his face) and mom slowly continued to the other side of the parking lot…as if the lot was her personal driveway…and no one else was there. At least mom can proudly sport all bumper stickers on her Volvo, touting what a caring person she is!
2. Do the members of the Planning Department have any kids? Parenting 101… kids know when their sibling is being disproportionately praised. Disproportionately favoring one child, can only result in the other feeling marginalized, despite the best of intention. Did not have issue with the Policing Task Force formed last year…but was turned off by the disproportionate attention paid to some groups, while others ignored and marginalized. Newton is not just white, black and LGBTQ. We are also Asian (of all kinds), Russian, Israeli and SO MUCH MORE. Yet none of this was reflected in the make up of the Task Force, nor mentioned in topics like housing, schools and others. I don’t know Councilors Makakie or Wright personally, and certainly not well, but they volunteered for a very tough job and frankly, I don’t see a malicious bone in either ladies. If I had to guess a motive of their comments, this would probably be it.
3. Just came back in from a walk. Apple Watch said I need to burn a few more calories to close today’s activity rings. It was a nice night and there where many others out as well. Each group I walked by were friendlier than the last. My cheek muscles were sore from all the smiling back; my hand tired from waving wildly, like Forest Gump on his shrimp boat when Lieutenant Dan showed up. Yet Newton is, “more divisive than ever before”. How can there be such a huge disconnect? Online, Newton is very divisive. But I don’t think its a color problem… not black vs white, nor blue vs red. Newton’s decisiveness stems from a from a conflict in Branding. Social media in Newton is like cliques in a High School cafeteria. Some want to project Newton as THE leading Progressive community – sanctimony be damned. While others are paralyzed to say anything fearing the wrath of the Newton Progressive elite. Will the real Newton please stand up? Perhaps Newton would be a lot less divisive without V14 and Facebook, and people are forced to chat in person?
Ted, independent of the Councilor’s intent, Nevena’s answer fits very well with what you are suggesting. Planning is not suggesting monolithic opinions of groups. This is about wide outreach. I would summarize the response, but it’s just better to listen to it on the video.
The Planning department has asked for input many times. From us, from a no bid 500000 contract with the Principal (le?) Group, to charettes at the High school, ad nauseam. From what I can tell, it’s ignored and Developers just do whatever they want.
I’ve completely lost any interest in giving my opinion to the city.
It’s all for show biz.
@RickFrank Just last week at an Urban Design Committee meeting the developer for a new project on Washington St. specifically cited the Washington St. Vision Plan as a reason they switched the design from 4 stories to 3 stories. That sounds like it had an impact to me.
@fignewtonville Nevana P-W, the community engagement planner, has been reaching out to PTOs as a way to reach parents with kids and she is planning to go to playgrounds or kids sports events as a way to reach out as well.
I see the focus groups as just one part of an extensive outreach plan — more than I’ve seen before. They’ve gotten attention as they are usually mentioned individually. But, the list of groups that Nevana P-W either has or has plans to reach out to is extensive. There was a slide in her presentation filled with organizations in Newton. I was impressed.
@Mike, I have no reason to doubt the Planning Department’s intent. But I do want people who comment on this topic to take a deep breath before excoriating someone without (1) giving them the benefit of the doubt, and (2) giving them an opportunity to comment before posting what is a divisive comment, IMHO.
Would it make a difference if the person asking the question was LGBTQ+? It would to me. Cisgender people who display a normative bias about another person’s motives or intent often leads to a false conclusion. So before you comment, stop and think whether you are making assumptions about someone else’s motives or intent based on your own status, experience or identity.